söndag 16 oktober 2011

Exactly!!!And elegantly written it is too, dear Dino!The point is that you either take the argument that all valuations are subjective (or rather intersubjective) and never objective seriously, or you don't. And if you do take it seriously, you're left to think in terms of processes where CREATION OF MEANING becomes everything since absolutely nothing is given.And the canvas on which you then PAINT YOUR WORLD is indeed The Wall of Contingency.I'm writing this sitting on the side of the volcano of Santorini in Greece. The volcano could literally explode any second. Sitting here reminds me of how utterly contingent life is.

UshtaAlexander

2011/10/15 Special Kain I agree. Spinoza's mistake was to promote "logical necessarism". I see Zarathushtra as an existentialist thinker precisely because he addressed the issue of inescapable and random suffering in the same way as did Nietzsche. It is the task of religion, political ideology and, more recently, self-help culture to explain random suffering - making it seem less random - and therefore "ease the pain": suffering as a necessary learning experience during one's journey towards self-actualization, one's sacrifice for a better future.Existentialist thinkers like Zarathushtra, Epictetus and Nietzsche were a lot smarter than this. They believed in CONTINGENCY and therefore took random suffering for what it is. They didn't take it as theologically or psychologically necessary, but put their focus on one's ATTITUDE towards inescapable suffering and how we choose to REACT: what we choose to think, speak and act, and how our ATTITUDE eventually affects this issue. They put their focus on the FUTURE rather than the past, because we become the choices we make within a given environment. For Epictetus there was nothing good or bad about suffering: it was merely "preferred" or "dispreffered". But it is us who CREATE VALUES and therefore differentiate between good and bad as a medical rather than moralistic choice. That's why Nietzsche defined ethics in terms of physiology, dietary needs, climate and one's constitution.

Yes, Hegel mistake was to be a determinist. What Nietzsche did was to take the Hegelian concept of "the mind observing the mind as pure mind" into the physical realm and turning it existentialist. And it is not so much idealism which is opposed to materialism as it is a matter of existentialism as opposed to determinism. What Hegel lacks is the concept "contingency", he is not a pragmatist.UshtaAlexander

2011/10/14 Special Kain

It is true that Nietzsche rarely mentioned Hegel. But Hegel's idealism is strictly teleological and dialectical, and Nietzsche was strongly opposed to teleology and dialectics. Hegel was the first to push Kant aside and discover a new path, but it was Nietzsche who took the first steps.

torsdag 13 oktober 2011

Correct!Although I would defend "idealism" in the Hegelian sense and claim (which I know is controversial) that Nietzsche and Hegel are united in this stance. Hegel's world is namely ALSO a world where we are to trust and refine our senses (his philosophy deals with how such a mind would work). So the BREAK WITH RATIONALISM really happens with Hegel as his "rationalism" is radically different from the classic rationalism of Kant (it is a transrationalism, a rationality knowing its own limits) and Nietzsche then builds on this as a sort of "post-Hegelian poet". Nietzsche did not openly oppose Hegel. The unfortunate opposition between the two thinkers was constructed much later by sloppy readers of the two (especially French Hegelians and French Nietzscheans opposed to each other in the 1950s).UshtaAlexander

2011/10/13 Special Kain

Nietzsche's point was to trust and refine our senses rather than blindly submit to rationality and all things abstract. He killed idealism in all its forms. As he knew, it takes courage to face reality and take things for what they are, as it takes courage to that which one knows (see his best text "Götzendämmerung"). Phenomenology as ontology!

Immanuel Kant arrived after Spinoza but before Nietzsche.The Kantian revolution means that we can no longer look at "the idea of reality" as anything but a more or less qualitative fantasy about the world. The real "noumenal" world that Kant discussed is out of reach. For good.Spinoza had no clue about this and discussed realism and rationalism as if they were perfectly self-evident necessities. No such concepts survived the Kantian revolution. Not even the self-evident cogito of Descartes which Spinoza never really opposed either.What Nietzsche ultimately then does is to put Kant against Kant himself and then throws the Kantian revolution into an historical context (showing the horrible consequences of Kant's achievement and the possible opening to a new affirmative nihilism this entails).As for Zarathushtra, he didn't step into Spinoza's trap to begin with. So he neither had to deal with. His is a cogito of action and effects rather than reflection.UshtaAlexander

2011/10/10 Daniel Samani

If one is not an "logical necessarist" what is one then? Even if Spinoza have inherited ways of toughs from Descartes does this means that his idea of necessity dont apply to Nietzsches idea of necessity in any way, shape or form? How do they differentiate? How I have comprehended it is some sort of skepticism towards our minds ability to process reality itself.

måndag 10 oktober 2011

Immanuel Kant arrived after Spinoza but before Nietzsche.The Kantian revolution means that we can no longer look at "the idea of reality" as anything but a more or less qualitative fantasy about the world. The real "noumenal" world that Kant discussed is out of reach. For good.Spinoza had no clue about this and discussed realism and rationalism as if they were perfectly self-evident necessities. No such concepts survived the Kantian revolution. Not even the self-evident cogito of Descartes which Spinoza never really opposed either.What Nietzsche ultimately then does is to put Kant against Kant himself and then throws the Kantian revolution into an historical context (showing the horrible consequences of Kant's achievement and the possible opening to a new affirmative nihilism this entails).As for Zarathushtra, he didn't step into Spinoza's trap to begin with. So he neither had to deal with. His is a cogito of action and effects rather than reflection.

UshtaAlexander

2011/10/10 Daniel Samani

If one is not an "logical necessarist" what is one then? Even if Spinoza have inherited ways of toughs from Descartes does this means that his idea of necessity dont apply to Nietzsches idea of necessity in any way, shape or form? How do they differentiate? How I have comprehended it is some sort of skepticism towards our minds ability to process reality itself.

UshtaDaniel

2011/10/9 Special Kain

Dear Daniel,

Nietzsche was not a Spinozist and therefore not a "logical necessarist". Spinoza was as much a rationalist and systematic philosopher as Kant and Descartes, and Nietzsche was strongly opposed to this philosophical obsession with systematicity.

Thank you for your time and your careful reply it is appreciated. I don't disagree at all, even if this to my mind sounds so simple to the point that it almost renders meaningless. In my mind the general description of what exists is what we can observe and sense - now I am not sure this is what you have in mind. Spinoza talks about and divide between adequate and inadequate ideas. As I have comprehended it Spinoza argues that inadequate ideas are contingent while adequate ideas are necessary - I have not currently grasped the ramifications of this statement. But is this on these lines you are speaking of that which really exists? I also see an connection between Spinozas concept of adequate ideas and Nietzsches concept of Amor fati where Nietzsche writes “I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth!”.

Ushta Daniel

2011/10/8 Special Kain

Dear Daniel,

Asha is that which fits with reality - that which really exists, which is Ahura. There are causes and effects. It is our attitude towards life that determines what we will choose. And we become the choices we make.

Asha or Arta is an very old concept, and is not without certain error translated to any given modern language. In both Sanskrit and Gathic Avestan, it literally means "what fits", in any and every situation. The Asha concept summarize Zarathustra's philosophy and it is not strange if one have to translate it differently in different contexts to minimize the loss of meaning when translating it too English. I have, one could say quite arbitrary categorized the different contexts in realms and dimensions. But this is too my defense how I have comprehended it.

In the material realm; in Mazdayasna also called Ahura - Asha means viewing the world as it is, the key concept here is what is probable in connection to the senses. When one talk about Asha in the mental realm the key concept is identity. What identities does currently work in the immediate space time environment one is experiencing. In Mazdayasna the concept Mazda could be equal of what I translate as the mental realm. Asha is then in this particular context what lenses (recall of memory) Mazda have too accurately fit together with Ahura.

Asha can also be spoken in the emotional dimension - if this is done the key word is desire in cooperation with an attitude of constructiveness. How can one act in an constructive and effective way that is in alignment with ones and others desires. The ethical choice can be called Asha and does then means the sum of all Asha and that which works best in the long perspective.

söndag 9 oktober 2011

The oldest fire temple in the world is currently being restored in Azerbaijan (the country, not the Iranian province). It is over 3,000 years old and is indeed built on a still active oil well. So the fire has been burning continously for over 3,000 years (!!!). Must be a bit irritating for Parsees in India who cllaim that all atash bahram fires should be taken from India when in reality there are still active sacred fires in Azerbaijan at least 1,700 years older than the oldest Zoroastrian fire in India. ;-)UshtaAlexander

2011/10/9 Hampus Lindblad

Yes, this is interesting. Would love to see the burning hillsides some time. This area is probably the region in the world where the power of fire through oil and natural gas was first experienced. Fitting then how the fire of Zarathustra also arose from there - as both things are so essential to our civilization, albeit on very different levels.

Ushta,Hampus

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Yes, The Sacred Fire as idea was INVENTED by the Iranians (though not by Zarathushtra who never even mentions fire in The Gathas) and then later picked up by the Greeks. So the sacred fire is an Iranian/Zoroastrian innovation (the name Azerbaijan, both an independent country and a province in north-west Iran illustrates this perfectly as it means "The Land of Fire").

UshtaAlexander

2011/10/9 Daniel Samani

Yes yes!! I have heard of metaphors and I find them really interesting and fascinating. I would really love to be able to read up about and understand further metaphors relevant to Zarathustra's philosophy. If you have any sources regarding this I would be really thrilled. Regarding Zarathustra's sacred fire - is there any connection that you are aware of with the olympic fire? If you know any change regarding the meaning in the abrahamic traditions that would be helpful to.

UshtaDaniel

2011/10/9 Alexander Bard

Ever heard of metaphors?Sky is a metaphor for infinity, the torch with the fire indicates that Zarathushtra carried the sacred fire to people (carried the sacred message to people), and wings indicate freedom, the freedom to create one's own identity. You will find these metaphors in all pagan Indo-European artistic traditions.UshtaAlexander

2011/10/7 Daniel Samani

Dear Alexander,

Thank you for the informative reply. Does this represent something, the sky and the torch with the sacred fire? And why does Zarathustra have wings? ;)